Vast amounts of money potentially influencing the May 2019 Australian federal election will not be disclosed to the public

CPI, Briefing Paper, 2 February 2020

The Centre for Public Integrity, media release, 3 February 2020:

A new briefing paper released by The Centre for Public Integrity today shows that vast amounts of money potentially influencing last year’s federal election will not be disclosed to the public.

Annual returns released on Monday by the Australian Electoral Commission will only cover some donations to political parties and other participants.

The paper shows that over $1 billion, or 36% of party income, has not been disclosed since 1999.

“Donations under $14,000 will not be disclosed, much income from associated entities, party fundraising events, membership fees is likely to be hidden,” said political finance expert and director of The Centre for Public Integrity Professor Joo Cheong Tham.

“Campaign spending will not be made public. Voters will not know who spent what in key states or marginal electorates.”

“Any breaches of disclosure regulations are unlikely to be investigated, as the AEC lacks the resources and there is no National Integrity Commission.’

“We need urgent reform of our disclosure system so that donations over $1000 are disclosed in real time, spending is made public, and any breaches are properly investigated by a National Integrity Commission,” concluded Professor Tham.

Read the briefing paper here.

Clarence Valley Council fights to limit access to its local government register of councillors' interests

And local government wonders why it has such a bad reputation across Australia.......

Clarence Valley councillors (left to right)
Back Row: Andrew Baker, Debrah Novak, Karen Toms, Richie Williamson, Peter Ellem, Greg Clancy
Front Row; Jim Simmons, Arthur Lysaught, Jason Kingsley
IMAGE: Clarence Valley Independent, 22 January 2020

Clarence Valley Independent, 22 January 2020:

Five of the valley’s councillors have remained staunch in their opposition to uploading their annual disclosure of interest returns to Clarence Valley Council’s (CVC) website. 

Councillors Williamson, Lysaught, Baker, Kingsley and Ellem were unmoved by a NSW Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) statement that called out the councillors’ decision at the November council meeting. 

Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd said that CVC and two other councils had “publicly stated their intention to adopt practices that appear to offend the requirements of the GIPA Act [Government Information (Public Access) Act] and Guideline 1”. 

“The resolutions by councils, as they seek to deviate from clear requirements under the GIPA Act, and justify non-compliance for privacy reasons will be something I consider carefully,” she said. 

The mayor, Jim Simmons, and councillors Toms and Novak (Cr Clancy was absent due to illness) supported the failed rescission motion, which was tabled by Cr Toms and co-signed by councillors Novak and Clancy. 

During questions before debate on the matter, Cr Baker asked if there was “any legislation” that compels CVC to upload the declarations. General manager Ashley Lindsay said “there is” and that CVC would have to provide a “reason why the declarations of interest are not provided on the website”. 

Councillor Lysaught asked if rejecting the rescission motion would constitute “any formal breach” of regulations. Mr Lindsay said he had received “a number of correspondences” from the IPC and that they had “already put us on notice to show cause why [the disclosures] were not on the web”. 

Councillor Toms argued that CVC was duty-bound to comply with what she said was “legislation” and quoted from the IPC’s Information Access Guideline regarding the “mandatory proactive release” requirements” for “open access Information”. 

The guideline and the GIPA Act do, however, provide for exceptions, provided a council can prove uploading the disclosures “would impose unreasonable costs on the council, or if the council determined there was an overriding public interest against disclosing the information”. 

Neither of those concepts have been the subject of a councillor decision.

Councillor Toms said she hoped she had “convinced” the other councillors, “now that the Privacy Commission has written to the general manager with a ‘please explain’”. 

She said she was “a bit disappointed” that she had not seen the letter from the IPC. 

“It should have been shared with councillors,” she said..... 

CVC’s current policy is to make the disclosure available on request in the presence of a CVC officer.

Read the full article here.

In which certain Clarence Valley elected councillors and senior council management try to pretend that a resolution at a NSW LGA conference has the force of law......

Given that local government is potentially the most corruptible of all three tiers of government in Australia, it comes as no surprise that transparency is still resisted though it is very disappointing to see Clarence Valley Council searching about for an excuse not to do the right thing.

One of the risible objections to having Disclosures of Interest published online was that it would be difficult to redact staff signatures & residential addresses and, is "considered a waste of valuable staff resourcing" [Item 6c.19.090, CVC Ordinary Monthly Meeting, Minutes, 29 November 2019].

Another was a suggestion that councillors and staff may be at physical risk if declarations were published online, even though these declartions are already available for inspection at council offices and have been for some years.

Clarence Valley Independent, 11 December 2019:

Councillor Karen Toms has lodged a rescission motion to try and overturn a decision, made at the November Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting, which raised the ire of the NSW Information and Privacy Commission (IPC).

Councillors Lysaught, Ellem, Kingsley, Baker, Williamson and Simmons voted against uploading councillors’ and senior staff’s declarations of interest to the CVC website. 

Following the decision, which was contrary to a guideline developed under the Government Information (Public Access) Act issued in September, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd released a statement. 

She said three local councils – Gosford City, Mid-North Coast and Clarence Valley – had “publicly stated their intention to adopt practices that appear to offend the requirements of the GIPA Act and Guideline 1”. 

“The resolutions by councils, as they seek to deviate from clear requirements under the GIPA Act, [to] justify non-compliance for privacy reasons will be something I consider carefully,” she said. 

“It is important to stress that the guideline was developed in consultation with the NSW Privacy Commissioner.” 

She said the interests required to be declared by councillors and senior decision makers include business and pecuniary interests. 

She said declaring these interests is “a demonstrably effective tool in preventing corruption and promoting integrity. “These are strong factors in favour of disclosure, particularly in the local government sector where decisions impact the everyday lives of people,” she said. 

“Those factors must be balanced against factors against disclosure, including privacy. “However, declarations of business interests will not necessarily disclose any information impacting personal privacy.” 

At the November CVC meeting, general manager Ashley Lindsay said: “…on behalf of staff and designated persons … I think it is unfair for them to have their information on the website.” 

Councillor Greg Clancy suggested that any “sensitive information could be redacted”. “What’s the problem with having [the disclosures] on the website?” he said. 

Mr Lindsay advised councillors that the recent Local Government NSW conference had resolved to support a motion by Mid-Coast Council, which “strongly objects to the [disclosures] … being published on any website”. “…We should support the Local Government NSW motion,” 

Mr Lindsay said when answering a question from Cr Toms. “If unsuccessful, we can come back and change [CVC’s decision] and comply,” he said. Referring to the IPC guideline during debate on the matter, mayor Jim Simmons said it “may not be legislation” and that he thinks “there is some doubt … so I intend to vote for” not uploading the disclosures. 

However, he said “if it becomes clear to me in the next day or two [that it is legislation] I’ll support a rescission motion”.

BACKGROUND

Information Access Guideline 1 - For Local Councils on the disclosure of information (returns disclosing the interest of councillors and designated persons) at https://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/information-access-guideline-1.

https://www.lgnsw.org.au/files/imce-uploads/581/2019_Record_of_Decisions_-_FINAL.pdf

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigating regulation of lobbying, access and influence in state government circles

In New South Wales state governments have attempted to regulate political and commercial lobbying of members of parliament and public servants under provisions contained in Lobbying of Government Officials Act 2011 , Lobbying of Government Officials (Lobbyists Code of Conduct) Regulation 2014, Lobbying of Government Officials (Lobbyists Code of Conduct) Amendment Regulation 2019, Premier’s Memorandum M2015-13 ‘NSW Lobbyists Code of Conduct’, Premier’s Memorandum M2015-05 ‘Publication of Ministerial Diaries and Release of Overseas Travel Information’. 

To date this approach has obviously been working so well that on 5 August 2019 the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) began public hearings into the regulation of lobbying, access and influence in NSW (Operation Eclipse). 

Three hearing days occurred in August and the next public hearing date is not scheduled until 21 October 2019.

 According to ICAC; “Like the Commission’s previous examination of lobbying practices in 2010 (Operation Halifax), this investigation is not concerned with examining whether any particular individual may have engaged in corrupt conduct, but rather seeks to examine particular aspects of lobbying activities and the corruption risks involved in the lobbying of public authorities and officials.” 

Interestingly on 30 August 2019 The Australian gave this explanation of the possible genesis of Operation Eclipse: 

The NSW corruption commission will examine the “revolving door” where politicians and public servants leave their careers to move into jobs with private sector lobbyists, warning that the trend has whittled away public trust. 

Heidrun Blackwood, a senior corruption prevention officer for the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, said the crisis of public trust in government risked cascading towards “doomsday” levels in the near future. 

She said the integrity body would soon investigate the access granted to special interest groups by MPs and public servants. 

Ms Blackwood flagged the investigation after Christopher Pyne — a former federal defence minister — took up a defence consulting job with EY, and former federal foreign minister Julie Bishop landed a gig as a board director with development contractor Palladium. 

Both have denied wrongdoing and have been cleared by outgoing public service boss Martin Parkinson, who is appearing before a parliamentary committee today to take questions on the matter….. 

According to the Grattan Institute, since 1990 more than one-quarter of all federal ministers or assistant ministers have taken up roles in lobbying outfits or special interest groups since leaving parliament. 

“The revolving door is an issue that we are going to look at,” Ms Blackwood said. “It is true that, on the one hand, it is part of democracy to have that conversation. 

“On the other hand, there is also the impression that some people are getting more access than others. That has prompted our commissioner to look at that issue more closely.”

Office of Environment and Heritage v Clarence Valley Council (2018)

Clarence Valley Local Government Area covers approximately 10,441 square kilometres with nine heritage conservation precincts and official heritage listings as long as your arm.

It processes up to $100.5 million worth of development applications in a financial year.

With so much environmentally sensitive land, so many nature reserves, large swathes of native title, state forests and national parks, ancient cultural sites, unlisted historical burials, heritage buildings/bridges/cemetaries, quarries and a good many planning decisions to make, there is also a possibility that something will go awry.

This entry in the NSW Online Registry - Court Lists indicates that all is not well:

Land and Environment Court, Sydney

Justice T Moore

Office of Environment and Heritage v Clarence Valley Council
Case Number: 2018/00119684

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Class 5 Directions Hearing on 25 May 2018.

According the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage website; Proceedings in Class 5 involve summary criminal enforcement proceedings, usually by government authorities prosecuting offences against planning or environmental laws and Class 5 prosecutions are heard by a judge without a jury.

This matter probably began its journey through the court in mid-April 2018 (or perhaps earlier) but it is unlikely council will tell the Clarence Valley electorate what event led to this court case anytime soon, as even a minimum degree of transparency concerning litigation is often missing in action.

The 'new' business model in politics

"It's no good fighting an election campaign on the facts because actually it's all about emotion."

Proof that a business model of election campaigning has come off the pages of a Hollywood screenplay and out onto the streets of everyday Australia (video at 5:54).

https://youtu.be/mpbeOCKZFfQ

Australian Politics 2018: and you foolishly thought things might get better this year

Well the democracy canary in the political coal mine fell senseless to the bottom of its cage this month when the Turnbull Government admitted that a high level of secrecy would surround its extra-parliamentary review of religious freedom in Australia.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 December 2017:

Public submissions to the Turnbull government's review of religious freedom in Australia will be kept secret, in a marked departure from normal processes, according to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's department.

The department, which has control of the inquiry, said it would not publish the submissions, which is in stark contrast to ordinary parliamentary inquiries, in which most submissions are automatically released.

"Submissions to the Expert Panel will not be published online," a department spokesman said in an emailed statement. "However, where individuals provide consent, submission extracts may be included in public materials."

Late on Tuesday, however, Mr Turnbull's media team sought to intervene by suggesting inquiry chairman Philip Ruddock would decide if submissions were published. The PM's office then instructed his own department to issue a new statement to that effect.

An hour later, the department said decisions on releasing submissions would rest on "whether individuals have provided consent", but that appears impossible, because the online consent form assures people their submission "will not be published in its entirety".

It is expected the high-profile inquiry - prompted by fears about the impact of same-sex marriage on religious practice - will attract submissions from Australia's biggest churches, including the Catholic and Anglican archdioceses of Sydney and Melbourne. It presents an opportunity for religious organisations and other advocates to spell out the exact changes to the law they believe are necessary.

Mr Ruddock said when contacted on Tuesday that the panel had not discussed the publication of submissions and ultimately it was a matter for the PM's department…..

The expert panel - which also includes Australian Human Rights Commission president Rosalind Croucher, Catholic priest Frank Brennan and retired judge Annabelle Bennett - is expected to meet for the first time next Wednesday. 

However, the negative response in mainstream and social media saw the democracy canary revived and placed on life support as the secrecy provisions in the online Consent form have been changed and now only apply to all those submissions received to date.

"The Expert Panel has not yet determined a final approach to publication of submissions. Submissions already provided will not be published without the agreement of the author" 

Which given that the majority of submissions would have been received by now means that it is highly unlikely that submissions made on behalf of religious institutions will ever be published by the Expert Panel.

NOTE

The submission period for the Religious Freedom Review commenced in December 2017 and ends on 31 January 2018 with the Expert Panel to deliver its findings by 31 March 2018.